Guess Which Conservative Said This?
By Mr. Ed Posted in 2008 — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"To me conservative governance means following the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers, it means recognizing that Jefferson won the debate with Hamilton, and that we want very strong, energetic, innovative states, with government both as limited as possible and as close to the people as possible. The states should not usurp functions that can be handled locally, and the federal government should not usurp functions that can be handled by the states. An important part of being a conservative President for me would be strengthening federalism. Conservative governance also means an emphasis on personal responsibility and letting the free market function unencumbered, so that Americans have tremendous opportunity, but not a guaranteed outcome. It means smaller, more efficient government; lower government spending; lower taxes. It means keeping the government out of our lives and letting families keep as much of the money they earn and make as many of their own decisions as possible. It means allowing younger workers to have personal Social Security accounts. It means getting entitlements under control.
I believe that our rights come from God, not from our government; that the people should retain as much power and be left alone as much as possible; that the federal government should not do what can be done at the local or state level; that our government belongs to the people, not the lobbyists and special interests; that government at all levels exists to serve the people and not the other way around; that we must respect the separation of powers and no branch should usurp the authority of another; that my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people from all threats; that the free market, low taxes, and minimal regulation are the keys to economic growth and prosperity; that Americans are owed equal opportunity, but not an equal outcome; that we are a culture of life and recognize that each individual has intrinsic value and worth; that we are only as strong as our families; that we owe a huge debt to those who have given their lives for this country to protect the freedoms and way of life for which they sacrificed.
I would weigh all of my decisions in the context of those principles to assure that I am doing the right thing and not the popular or expedient thing. I will always err on the side of protecting life, strengthening our families, and protecting our citizens and our country from possible threats to their safety."
So who said this?
A) Governor Mike Huckabee?
B) Senator Fred Thompson?
C) Governor Mitt Romney?
D) Newt Gingrich?
E) Ronald Reagan?
Personally, I believe any one of these individuals could have said it. However, if you answered "A", you are correct! Please pass "Go" and collect $200.
This was Huckabee's response to a questionnaire from the American Conservative Union on his "governing philosophy".
Thanks to Jeff Carter at the Evangelical Outpost for providing this reponse.
He's also the guy who has talked about a National Smoking Ban.
Not exactly, following through on his speech.
only smoking restrictions in enclosed work areas.
Huck has explicity said this does NOT include one's home or restaurants/bars, where people can "choose" to enter, knowing the risks.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
I am no proponent of smoking, especially since an allergy to it almost killed me a few times. When I was 16 and almost died the first time from an allergic reaction to smoke, most stores and offices around my hometown voluntarily banned smoking.
I didn't like it because I felt like people were being forced to do something because of me. I had to be careful which places I went bowling or purchased my gas, etc. It was my problem, not the problem of those that smoked.
Smoking is one of the most disgusting habits one can get suckered into, but it's their choice. Do I wish every place was smoke free, absolutely. I wish everyone that does smoke would wake up and rid themselves of cigarettes, but alas it hasn't happened yet. I don't think the government should get into whether or not smoking should be banned in the workplace. I have seen it done voluntarily, almost 100% city wide, so I know it can be done without the government's intervention.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
As a strong states rights guy myself, I believe -- in an ideal world -- the federal government should stay out of the practices of private businesses.
However, OSHA already exists and isn't going away. OSHA already regulates the workplace environment as it relates to other hazards, including hazardous fumes from a number of sources. With this precedent, I find it consistent to include carcinogenic second hand smoke in this category.
Is it ideal? No. Is it a big deal? No, at least not to me.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
"The states should not usurp functions that can be handled locally, and the federal government should not usurp functions that can be handled by the states."
"only smoking restrictions in enclosed work areas."
But the federal government should usurp functions that can be handled privately? Inconsistent.
absentee
| 
| 
| 
The question is not "is this a good idea?" But rather "is this a federal issue?"
Huckabee claims to think that the federal goVernment should not exceed its Constitutional powers, and that it should only act when the several acting individually cannot. A national smoking ban, either comprehensive or limited to enclosed work spaces, is a gross violation on both counts.
There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet
In responding, please keep in mind his statement in his governing philosophy that he's a strong states rights believer.
As such, his actions as governor fall into line with a genuine federalist approach and should not necessarily be construed as how he would act in a federal role as POTUS.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
I believe Fred has said most of this as well. It's all over his web site, in his debates, and in his message to the people.
He also has a positive record to back up what he says.
What record are you talking about? As far as I know -- McCain/Feingold is the only legislation he really pushed... Unless I missed something?
There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet
McCabius,
I spent several replies to a post yesterday on this subject. Unfortunately said post is gone because the poster "took his ball and went home." I don't have to time go look it all up for you again. If you want to know any member of congress's actions, just go to THOMAS. That is the Library of Congress's online database.
It's a good speech, but relatively empty when compared to Huckabee's lackluster record as a conservative.
fend off opponents by sounding like them.
This is Huck trying to appeal to Fred supporters. Normally I would applaud this kind of speech, but his "conversion" to federalism is pretty recent . . . and opportunistic.
Huck . . . when it comes to issues he doesn't really care about (anything not relating to social conservatism), Huck is willing to change his policies to pander to the audience
Don't like him on illegal immigration---look how tough he is now
Don't like him on foreign policy --- use toughest language possible in response (criticizes bunker mentality changes into follow to the gates of hell)
Don't like him on taxes --- Fairtax and no tax pledge
Don't like him on limited government ---say federalism and mention the Constitution
In his past political life, how many times has Huck ever mentioned the constitution outside of specific social conservative amendments?
Not believable to me. Outside of the issues he cares about, Huckabee has no credibility with me.
My antenna are a lot higher after watching GWB oversee the withering of the GOP's fiscal responsibility and small government planks. For all his good qualities (and there are many), this is part of Bush's legacy.
Nothing I've seen from Huck convinces me he will turn that around, or even wants/intends to.
Based on all available evidence of his record and the way the guy speaks on 'us/them' 'rich/poor' populism, then to me this wonderful rhetoric above fits the definition of either (or both):
a) pandering
b) saying anything (and I mean literally anything) to get elected.
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning